If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are currently viewing our forums as a GUEST.

This allows you to read, but not participate in our discussions.

This also prevents you from downloading attachments and seeing some of our specialized sub-forums.

Registration is free and painless and requires absolutely no personal information other than a valid email address.

You can register for our history forums here. [this reminder disappears once you are registered]

Leave a comment:

AJ mentions the wealth factor. Part of the problem is that you can't run for office unless you're rich EVEN NOW. One of the things I learned about DC is that politicians are basically infants. Not just emotionally, but physically. They hire people to do pretty much everything except wipe their behind - and sometimes they can't even manage that - and the truth is that very little of what you hear a politician say actually comes from his brain. He's just a muppet saying what his speechwriting team tells him to say. But when you have speechwriters and coaches hand crafting your every move, it is easy to give the pretense of being charismatic and intelligent. And while John Q Normal Guy might have better common sense and capability than the Borg drone he would be running against, he can't afford the speechmaking team that can give his words polish. And in the age of the low information voter, charisma matters more than know how.

Actually, you don't have to be rich, just have campaign funding. Very few Congressional candidates run on their own money, rich or not.

Leave a comment:

Well they really can't hold office now anyway, really. It's an outside chance that some poor kid who can't get into a good school will be able to become President.

Or they do what most politicians do and let donors and interest groups foot the bill instead. A good politician now is talented at raising money and getting other people to spend on their campaign.

Maybe if we put tighter controls on who and what spent money on politicians then it would be easier to justify giving them a higher pay.

Honestly I think the biggest obstacle here is gonna be timing. Considering congress has lower approval ratings than Obama currently and the popular idea is that they're not doing anything, asking for more money seems insulting.

AJ mentions the wealth factor. Part of the problem is that you can't run for office unless you're rich EVEN NOW. One of the things I learned about DC is that politicians are basically infants. Not just emotionally, but physically. They hire people to do pretty much everything except wipe their behind - and sometimes they can't even manage that - and the truth is that very little of what you hear a politician say actually comes from his brain. He's just a muppet saying what his speechwriting team tells him to say. But when you have speechwriters and coaches hand crafting your every move, it is easy to give the pretense of being charismatic and intelligent. And while John Q Normal Guy might have better common sense and capability than the Borg drone he would be running against, he can't afford the speechmaking team that can give his words polish. And in the age of the low information voter, charisma matters more than know how.

Leave a comment:

Someone mentioned have reps work in their home state. The more I look at that, the more appealing it gets.

We live in the digital age. Having to live where you work is fast becoming obsolete. My job has me frequently communicating with Chennai, India in real time and that's on a shoestring budget. Traveling to a central meeting place to manage the government made sense in the days of horse and buggy, trains, and even planes. But we live in the age of Skype. This:

is obsolete as well as expensive as all hell to maintain. Making representatives work from their home state would be cheaper for the taxpayer and cheaper for the representatives. Then we could either turn the Senate building into a museum, bulldoze it, or just shutter it and let nature take it's course. Either way, money in the bank.

Another benefit no one brought up yet: having politicians work in their home state would add to the difficulty of lobbyists being able to influence them. We really should just hang all lobbyists. What they engage in is graft by another name. But since we're too civilized for that, keeping representatives in their home state would at least force lobbyists to work harder when it comes to bribing and corrupting them. Right now all lobbyists need is one office in DC and they are in personal contact with any politician they want. Splitting up the pack forces them to either have an office in every state they wish to influence or become very comfortable with air travel. Yes, since they are working in the Skype age as well they will be able to contact them without travelling but from what I've read lobbyists are a lot like pharmaceutical reps and they build their influence with the politician through personal connections - golf, wining and dining, parties etc.. So at least now they would need an office in every state.

Leave a comment:

So you believe we can find 535 idealistic wealthy people with integrity?

What do you tell kids when they discover that they won't ever be able to hold office in Congress or as the President because their family income is too low?

Well they really can't hold office now anyway, really. It's an outside chance that some poor kid who can't get into a good school will be able to become President.

Or they do what most politicians do and let donors and interest groups foot the bill instead. A good politician now is talented at raising money and getting other people to spend on their campaign.

Maybe if we put tighter controls on who and what spent money on politicians then it would be easier to justify giving them a higher pay.

Honestly I think the biggest obstacle here is gonna be timing. Considering congress has lower approval ratings than Obama currently and the popular idea is that they're not doing anything, asking for more money seems insulting.

Leave a comment:

I agree. The wealthy have always seem to have a majority in Congress and even state legislatures. But I also don't believe Congress should "make" one wealthy.

I gotta rep you for this, because it nails the issue on the head for many of us. The idea that someone can become wealthy through congress is just unsettling. It implies financial impropriety to me, and I don't want our representatives to be motivated by greed.

But it is a tough call because if only the wealthy can serve then it defeats the purpose as well. It's why I think an "average income" is suitable for most - if the average American can live off of X thousand a year, they can too.

Leave a comment:

Why bother? Arizona has some of the lowest paid state legislators in the country. They make about $28,000, give or take. There is no shortage of people running for office.

I think Congress should be the same way. You're a millionaire like John Kerry, you don't get paid... Thank you for your service in office. You have a "real" job you get that amount for being elected to make up for not being able to do that job.

Oh, don't expect any retirement or anything else once you leave office. You chose to serve and get elected. It doesn't entitle you to a retirement or health care or anything else when you leave that elected office.

So you believe we can find 535 idealistic wealthy people with integrity?

What do you tell kids when they discover that they won't ever be able to hold office in Congress or as the President because their family income is too low?

Leave a comment:

Give them an incentive to help the average American make more because it grows their paycheck.

Why bother? Arizona has some of the lowest paid state legislators in the country. They make about $28,000, give or take. There is no shortage of people running for office.

I think Congress should be the same way. You're a millionaire like John Kerry, you don't get paid... Thank you for your service in office. You have a "real" job you get that amount for being elected to make up for not being able to do that job.

Oh, don't expect any retirement or anything else once you leave office. You chose to serve and get elected. It doesn't entitle you to a retirement or health care or anything else when you leave that elected office.

Leave a comment:

Ok, they get mileage. They should-travelling for business is perfectly valid compensation situation.

Unless the lobbyists are conducting herds on Congressmen, I expect the vacations opportunities are attuned to seniority.

Every job has some perks.

But that has nothing to suggest that a Congressman can afford to send his kids to a good school.

I'm hearing lots of hate, but very few numbers.

The simple fact, as already stated, is you don't like 'em, vote 'em out and get new ones. You want the job to go to only the wealthy and the terminally corrupt, cut the pay.

Then hear this - no one forced anyone to run for Congress. Like hundreds of millions of other Americans they made thier choices and they have to live with them.

Hard times are here for everybody, not just the priviligeratti who sponge off of the taxpayers while whining about "hard times". I'm retired military, and the people blocking cost-of-living increases for military retirees are the same Congress scum whining like little girls about how "hard it is" for them to make their expensive ends meet. Tough S***. Suck it up - I have to.

Hard times is a single mother or father holding down two or three jobs to pay the rent and feed the kids, not a Congress creature in an expensive suit living in a townhouse in Georgetown.

Don't like the pay - QUIT. Go get a real job involving some real work, but QUIT BITCHING. The door to your office is open for you to leave any time, and MacDonalds is always hiring. And I'll bet a lot of your constituents would be more than happy to show you where to apply for food stamps.

Leave a comment:

Congressmen are paid mileage to go home and come back to DC. Even Abraham Lincoln fudged his numbers on going back and forth. These days Lobbyists often offer airplane rides to go back and forth. Lobbyists also offer expense free vacations to exotic places. Years ago John Anderson reported that one Congressional Junket to Jamaica went out bird shooting while there and they even shot a few Parrots. The only Parrots on Jamaica are endangered and the locals are not allowed to shoot them! The Speaker of the House and the President Pro Temp of the Senate are give free rides home by the Air Force. Nancy Pelosi made sure she got hers and I bet she misses them now.

Pruitt

Ok, they get mileage. They should-travelling for business is perfectly valid compensation situation.

Unless the lobbyists are conducting herds on Congressmen, I expect the vacations opportunities are attuned to seniority.

Every job has some perks.

But that has nothing to suggest that a Congressman can afford to send his kids to a good school.

I'm hearing lots of hate, but very few numbers.

The simple fact, as already stated, is you don't like 'em, vote 'em out and get new ones. You want the job to go to only the wealthy and the terminally corrupt, cut the pay.

Leave a comment:

I don't know about honest pay. DC housing is fiendishly high, and most have to fly back and forth between their home district and DC many times a year.

Congressmen are paid mileage to go home and come back to DC. Even Abraham Lincoln fudged his numbers on going back and forth. These days Lobbyists often offer airplane rides to go back and forth. Lobbyists also offer expense free vacations to exotic places. Years ago John Anderson reported that one Congressional Junket to Jamaica went out bird shooting while there and they even shot a few Parrots. The only Parrots on Jamaica are endangered and the locals are not allowed to shoot them! The Speaker of the House and the President Pro Temp of the Senate are give free rides home by the Air Force. Nancy Pelosi made sure she got hers and I bet she misses them now.

Pruitt

Leave a comment:

Term limits are another way of enabling the un-informed and lazy citizen/voters. Our system was designed for informed and involved citizens doing the voting, and also being part of the grass-roots political choosing and vetting system. If enough citizens were doing their duty, then the citizens/voters will be applying "term limits".

Few elected, or running, candidates do so on their own funds. It's usually "the Party" which provides the fund-raising for campaigning. Hence, citizens being involved, starting at respective party precinct level, and upward would be the best way to counter "bad" candidates.

Human nature I guess that most would rather bitch about the process and results rather than get involved in and make a difference where such should happen and would be more effective. This is why often it's just a handful of persons, not often fully representative, whom shape the choices and candidates being offered.